The one that got away
 

Closing Gitmo may be a 'popular' move but it does have consiquences.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508506,00.html

So does chemo therapy. So does the right to bear arms. So do public schools. So does well intentioned war. So does torture. So does wire tapping. So do school vouchers.

Everything has a consequence. Even when it's the right thing to do.

School vouchers dont plot, gather resources, raise rabble, to destroy america and kill its citizens. :doh:

Neither do the many people held at Guantanamo for years, including people who were tortured, who were then released without charges. :doh:

And you know this for a fact? Where were most of the residents of Gitmo picked up? I suppose they were just caught jay-walking on the way to the 7-11?:hmmm:

I know for a fact that I'm against illegal detention. I know for a fact that I believe in due process. I know for a fact that I'd prefer my country not round up people, torture, them, incarcerate them for years then release them with no charges which indicates they didn't do anything, or at the very least, there is no evidence that they did.

And all those things you believe in (our criminal justice system) allow people to walk away from crimes on technicalities daily. Releasing someone without charges has no correlation to lack of guilt.

Edit : I'm not fond of imperfections in any justice system either, but there is no perfection in any system created by the human being. It's just not possible.

D Trucker,
Is it not the case that you would sing a different tune where you to be imprisoned
indefinitely without being proved guilty?

I think both sides are completely missing the point in this closing Gitmo debate. The real problem isn't Gitmo itself, it's the lack of justice.

Closing Gitmo and moving the inmates to another location won't solve the problem at all. It goes without saying that releasing everybody there will cause massive problems as well.

What they need to do is put the bastards on trial, regardless of citizenship. The government shouldn't be afraid of this. If we're certain enough of their guilt to have them locked up for 8 years, we should be confident that they'll be found guilty at a trial. Giving them a fair trial doesn't mean letting them get away. If they're guilty they should be found guilty at a fair trial. I'm not saying that they should be given a full trial by jury, but at least give them a chance to defend themselves in a trial that is acceptable to the Supreme Court. If they're tried and found guilty, they should obviously be locked up or fried in the electric chair.

The real problem shouldn't be what to do with the terrorists. The problem will be what to do with those found innocent at a trial. If you let them go, you run the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy - an innocent person who is falsely accused and imprisoned without trial for being an anti-American terrorist is much more likely to become an anti-American terrorist.

It's like the scene from Sleeping Dogs where the main character (Smith) is thrown in prison for joining the Resistance movement, even though he's completely innocent. After Smith has been in prison for a while, the head of the police visits him and offers him exile in return for a televised confession that he is a terrorist. Smith refuses, and tells the policeman that he's never been part of the Resistance. The policeman's response is (paraphrasing): "I know, but because we imprisoned you you'd surely join the Resistance if we released you."

Of all the people imprisoned at Gitmo, I think most of them are probably terrorists or aspiring terrorists. However, I think there are probably a few innocents in there, and figuring out how to release them without them wanting to avenge the 8 years of wrongful imprisonment without trial will be a very difficult task.

Would you not sing a different tune if your family were murdered by a deranged person who was allowed to go free after having been captured because of a failure in the justice system?

Of course, the answer is yes in both cases, isn't it?:hmmm:

Just send them over here in a private jet at the expense of the British taxpayer, which happened recently.

That depends on how strong your principles are re human rights and justice versus your emotions, hatred and revenge. If the latter is stronger...well, then you do not need a justice system. You need a lych mob.

It is one thing to be in a situation of your family having been killed and then asking for revenge. It is another if you are not affected and cry for revenge nevertheless. Thus begins the spiral of violence and injustice getting out of control.

That's the YING and YANG of our judicial system. Either we all have the same rights before the law or none of us does.

Gitmo's problem is that it symbolizes the policy that the President can decide, without formal charges, who is a 'enemy combatant', even a US citizen, and therefore deny that person due process, indefinately. :o

Gitmo and the case I brought up are both cases of failed justice systems. The case I brought up had absolutely nothing to do with revenge. It had to do with how one would feel about a failure of the justice system. Personally, again, I'll state that there can be no perfect justice system until there are perfect human beings (an unlikelihood).

That's just silly. To assert that the position of closing Gitmo is one of human rights and justice whereas the other side is just pure emotion is elitist crap.

Both sides have very intellectual reasonings supporting their beliefs. Why not focus on those rather than reducing the side you disagree with to mere reflex emotions?

Frankly, one could just as easily argue that the argument for closing Gitmo is an emotional consideration of specific individuals over the greater good. That would be just as absurd.